hdan
Munifex
Posts: 35
|
Post by hdan on Jun 14, 2018 15:25:41 GMT
I've been following this line of modifications with interest, as I'm working up Greco-Persian Wars era armies.
I was initially in favor of giving 8Bw side support, but now I'm starting to sway towards +1 PIP to contact bow. Why? Marathon.
The Persians never expected the Greeks to close as quickly as they did. In DBA terms, they expected to break up the line some during the approach, and that the PIP cost to reform or contact as a group would be too high. But the Greeks managed to keep their phalanx in order, and push home across the whole line.
My other armies don't have proper archers, and my EAP's are still a ways off from taking to the field, so I'm having to live vicariously through your reports. Thanks for the food for thought, and the playtesting.
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Jun 14, 2018 21:28:51 GMT
My take so far on "Light Foot" ie in Phil world Ps - they should be able to Evade (ie turn a Destroyed result into a Flee result - its good to have terms) IF they have a higher movement allowance (MA) in their current Terrain (except v. any Bow armed troops). Since Light Foot are (almost) always Fast they move 3BW and ignore terrian hence they can escape all but Fast Medium Foot (it Aux in Phil world).
Should we allow "Fast Medium Foot w/Swords" as they would be Ps killers - that depends on lists but they could be quite rare.
Its possible we should not count Shield Wall against Light Foot to avoid making Spear/Bow combos into Ps killers.
Still hoping that Spear/bow combo troops can be Bow for overhead shooting and then Spear for Close (but maybe without Shield Wall?)
Thanks for excellent feedback re Ancients - great period that deserves great rules.
TomT
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jun 17, 2018 17:22:50 GMT
Tom, I suspect that the Ancients army lists under a point system will need orders of magnitude more research and work than Knights and Knaves.
In my view, if it can somehow follow more of a D3H2 approach, with, say 24AP each side (as per HotT, say) but some small wiggle room to allow for differences in effect. Given that most of the combat interactions designed in DBA v3 are specifically aimed at rendering all elements to a greater or lesser extent "equal" (in other words, 12 elements armies), it is not a trivial matter to just "rebalance" the game with a points system, even with the current imbalances in canonical DBA v3.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Jun 18, 2018 2:42:44 GMT
Tom, I suspect that the Ancients army lists under a point system will need orders of magnitude more research and work than Knights and Knaves. In my view, if it can somehow follow more of a D3H2 approach, with, say 24AP each side (as per HotT, say) but some small wiggle room to allow for differences in effect. Given that most of the combat interactions designed in DBA v3 are specifically aimed at rendering all elements to a greater or lesser extent "equal" (in other words, 12 elements armies), it is not a trivial matter to just "rebalance" the game with a points system, even with the current imbalances in canonical DBA v3. Agreed, I tried to look at Greek Hoplites vs EAP using the points from D3H2, and the Greeks actually came out behind because the double elements cost more than spears.. Points systems are always hard, since (harkening back to my Warhammer Fantasy days...) 500 goblins at 1 point a piece will still never be able to defeat a 500 point dragon...
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 18, 2018 10:36:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jun 18, 2018 15:34:44 GMT
In my long experience, DBA v3 with no points system is nor more or less balanced than those with a points system. Because regardless of whether you use points or element number, you are making a statement about the chances of victory of both sides.
Personally, I intensely dislike points system. Handicaps can (and should) be considered. But these can involve special abilities or modifiers. They don't need points.
In my view, house rules for playbalance in key problem areas are a WHOLE LOT easier to manage and tweak than a global, end-to-end points system.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Jun 18, 2018 16:55:30 GMT
In my long experience, DBA v3 with no points system is nor more or less balanced than those with a points system. Because regardless of whether you use points or element number, you are making a statement about the chances of victory of both sides. Personally, I intensely dislike points system. Handicaps can (and should) be considered. But these can involve special abilities or modifiers. They don't need points. In my view, house rules for playbalance in key problem areas are a WHOLE LOT easier to manage and tweak than a global, end-to-end points system. Go simply gives the weaker player 1+ more stones on the board at the beginning. Maybe there's a player/army ranking that will allow the weaker army/player a couple more elements?
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Jun 19, 2018 20:34:48 GMT
You can get better balance through a point system but it does take a bit of feedback.
So lets get to D3H2 - here I had to use the HOTT2.0 point system (I've gots lots more flexibilty in Knights and Knaves).
Hence since Behemoths count 4 in HOTT so did El. (And in Phil/Tom defense - the initial feedback re DBA 3.0 was that El were going to rule the board).
As to double elements in D3H2 they don't count double losses as in DBA3.0 so I tried to balance with points (3 v. 2). On reflection though I've decided to make Double Element Bow cost only 2 points. I had already lowered basic DBA Bow to 1.5 (Shooters are 2) so we have room to lower double Bow to only 2 - this will make them equal with Spear. I had originally pledged to only use Phil rules in D3H2 but am bending a bit (and may consider giving side support to Double Bow. I can of course do anything I want in Knights & Knaves (I don't see the research gap between ancients and medievals, the latter has very strong combined arms aspects and more source material to digest - I think we can handle both).
As to El/Behemoth we could lower them to 3 in D3H2.
In any case thanks for point feedback (I assume some at least comes from playing games). I have no problem adjusting point values per player feedback - reviewing what elements players actually take in tournament play is an excellent market based method for reviewing point balance.
TomT
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Jun 20, 2018 0:54:26 GMT
In any case thanks for point feedback (I assume some at least comes from playing games). I have no problem adjusting point values per player feedback - reviewing what elements players actually take in tournament play is an excellent market based method for reviewing point balance. I don't generally play in tournaments as I find them strangely stressful, BUT I do agree that they can be the best/easiest/quickest way to see any Min/Maxing that's going on. As long as players know they are playing "non-official" variants going in. Privateer Press does this very well. Based on feedback from the players at tourneys, they post changes to the various armies so that players will take some of the less popular troops
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Jun 20, 2018 0:55:45 GMT
You can get better balance through a point system but it does take a bit of feedback. So lets get to D3H2 - here I had to use the HOTT2.0 point system (I've gots lots more flexibilty in Knights and Knaves). Hence since Behemoths count 4 in HOTT so did El. (And in Phil/Tom defense - the initial feedback re DBA 3.0 was that El were going to rule the board). As to double elements in D3H2 they don't count double losses as in DBA3.0 so I tried to balance with points (3 v. 2). On reflection though I've decided to make Double Element Bow cost only 2 points. I had already lowered basic DBA Bow to 1.5 (Shooters are 2) so we have room to lower double Bow to only 2 - this will make them equal with Spear. I had originally pledged to only use Phil rules in D3H2 but am bending a bit (and may consider giving side support to Double Bow. I can of course do anything I want in Knights & Knaves (I don't see the research gap between ancients and medievals, the latter has very strong combined arms aspects and more source material to digest - I think we can handle both). As to El/Behemoth we could lower them to 3 in D3H2. In any case thanks for point feedback (I assume some at least comes from playing games). I have no problem adjusting point values per player feedback - reviewing what elements players actually take in tournament play is an excellent market based method for reviewing point balance. TomT Speaking of D3H2, Tom, is there a place where the latest and greatest resides? Would it be on the Yahoo group? Would you want to post it on the wiki? Do you prefer to do emails? I did find it online, but I'm sure it isn't the latest revision. Chris
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 20, 2018 11:43:51 GMT
You are right Tom, adjusting the Elephant and 8Bw points to D3H2 does help. (I wonder if we should start a new thread for this subject?)Revised D3H2 Points System (as proposed by MedievalThomas):- Art, WWg, 6Kn/6Cv/6Bd, 8Sp, and Elephants? = 3 AP Sp, Bd, CP/Lit/CWg, Kn, Cm, Cv, LH, and 8Bw? = 2 AP Pk, Wb, Ax, Bw, Mtd-Inf = 1½ AP SCH, Hd, Ps = 1 AP Camps, Cities, and Generals = free, but 2 AP if lost Civilians = free, and zero AP if lost Looking at it from a purely DBA Army List point of view, here are some typical armies. I’ve aimed for 21 AP, give or take ½ an AP, simply because that fits in with the normal DBA 12 element system. So a DBA army will rout when 7 AP, usually 4 elements, is lost, or when 10½ AP is lost in traditional HoTT. II/10 Camillan Romans = 2 x Cv, 2 x Bd, 4 x Sp, 2 x Ax, 2 x Ps (21 AP, spot on) II/27b Pyrrhus of Epirus = 1 x Kn/Cv, 1 x Cv, 1 x LH, 1 x El, 4 x Pk, 2 x Sp, 1 x Ax, 1 x Ps (21½ AP, spot on) II/27b Pyrrhus of Epirus = 1 x Kn/Cv, 1 x Cv, 1 x LH, 1 x El, 6 x Pk, 1 x Ax, 1 x Ps (20½ AP, spot on) (Note that the Romans have a frontage of 8 elements, discounting the Ps and the two reserve Triarii Sp needed to replace losses. Pyrrhus has a frontage of 8 or 9 discounting the Ps...so why do people whinge about Pk armies having less frontage?)
II/33 Polybian Romans = 2 x Cv, 4 x Bd, 2 x Sp, 2 x Ax, 2 x Ps (21 AP, spot on) II/33 Polybian Romans = 2 x Cv, 6 x Bd, 2 x Sp, 2 x Ps (22 AP, too high, lose a Ps) II/11 Gallic foot army = 2 x Cv, 9 x Wb, 1 x Ps (18½ AP, too low, add a Cv) II/11 Gallic mounted army = 5 x Cv, 6 x Wb, 1 x Ps (20 AP, too low, add a Wb) (Note that the Gauls should only have a maximum of one Ps, so I’ve added extra Cv/Wb to make up the AP cost)
II/32a Later Carthage (Trebia) = 2 x Cv, 1 x LH, 1 x El, 3 x Sp, 2 x Wb/Ax, 1 x Ax, 2 x Ps (21½ AP, spot on) II/32a Later Carthage (Cannae) = 2 x Cv, 2 x LH, 2 x Sp/Bd?, 2 x Wb/Ax, 2 x Ax, 2 x Ps (20 AP, too low, add a Wb/Ax) II/32a Later Carthage (Zama) = 1 x Cv, 1 x LH, 2 x El, 3 x Sp, 2 x Wb/Ax, 1 x Ax, 2 x Ps (22½ AP, too high, lose a Sp/Ax) (Note that for Cannae I’ve swapped a Sp for an Ax, as three Sp is too awkward when recreating this battle. And I’ve also given an option to have Hannibal’s spearmen as Blades because they were veterans... ...and veteran Sp should be better than ordinary Sp, and Blades don’t need side-supporting)
II/39a Spanish Iberians = 1 x Cv, 1 x LH, 6 x Ax, 4 x Ps (17 AP, too low, add two Ax & a Ps) II/39b Spanish Celtiberians = 1 x Cv, 1 x LH, 6 x Bd, 4 x Ps (20 AP, too low, add a Ps) II/39c Spanish Lusitanians = 1 x Cv, 1 x LH, 3 x Ax, 6 x Ps, 1 x Bd (16½ AP, too low, add two Ax & a Ps) II/39c Spanish Lusitanians = 1 x Cv, 1 x LH, 9 x Ps, 1 x Bd (15 AP, too low, add six! Ps) (The Lusitanians are without doubt the exception with 18 elements, and routed when they lose 7 AP, which could be as low as losing 3 elements and a general or as high as losing 7 elements of Ps)
II/35 Late Macedon = 2 x Cv, 1 x LH, 6 x Pk, 3 x Ps (18 AP, too low, add two Ax) II/35 Late Macedon = 2 x Cv, 1 x LH, 6 x Pk, 2 x Ax, 1 x Wb/Ax (19½ AP, too low, add a Ps) II/48 Mithridates = 1 x Cv, 1 x Kn, 1 x LH, 1 x SCh, 4 x Pk, 3 x Ax, 1 x Ps (18½ AP, too low, add an Ax & Ps) II/48 Mithridates = 1 x Cv, 1 x Kn, 2 x LH, 4 x Bd, 3 x Ax, 1 x Ps (20½ AP, spot on) (Again, even with or without the AP adjustments, these pike armies with auxiliaries have a frontage of at least 8 elements... ...so why do people complain about pike armies having a short front line?)
I/52f Later Athens = 8 x Sp, 1 x Cv/LH, 1 x Bw, 2 x Ps (21½ AP, spot on) I/52f Later Athens (Marathon) = 10 x Sp, 1 x Bw, 1 x Ps (22½ AP, too high, lose a Bw/Ps) I/60c Early Persians = 2 x Cv, 1 x Cv/LH, 4 x 8Bw, 1 x Sp, 1 x Ax, 3 x Hd/Ps (20½ AP, spot on) (Note that if the Persians take ordinary Bw instead of 8Bw, they could squeeze in an extra Bw & Ps element)For those that are interested, I've posted a longer list containing more typical DBA armies here:- fanaticus.boards.net/post/13938/Later Additional Edit:-Also, this analysis of the effects of a HoTT points system on the DBA army lists has revealed to me another interesting observation. Taking very extreme examples:- 10 x 4Bd/Sp + 1 Ps would be worth 21 AP and have 42 figures. 14 x 3Ax Spanish would be worth 21 AP and have 42 figures. 21 x Ps Aetolians would be worth 21 AP and have 42 figures. So unless the Aetolians/Paionians were always outnumbered in every battle they fought by almost 2:1, this points system could be used to at least make the manpower of their army match that of their opponents. I see it as another tool for the discerning historical player to use as they wish. Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients, and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 20, 2018 11:45:39 GMT
Having said all that in my previous post, I’m still unsure about points. Now I’m not against a points system per say...but just chucking extra elements on the table will not correct inherent weaknesses. If certain elements such as Bw are deemed to be weak (and Ax certainly are), wouldn’t it be better to address this perceived weakness directly? Giving Hannibal more Ax at Cannae will still not help to recreate this battle...they’ll have to be kept in reserve to replace the inevitable losses in the front line, and it makes the Carthaginian army larger in numbers, the opposite of reality. Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients, and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jun 21, 2018 2:37:06 GMT
Stevie, did you just prove that the points system is pretty much aligned with the 12-a-side game, give or take? Doesn't seem like it is adding much value.
HotT needs points because there are no historical Army Lists. I maintain Stevie has the better idea: tweak the element interaction?
Alternatively, if we could compile amd maintain a list of known bad matchups, we could assign an extra Ps or Hd to the weaker side for a handicap?
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 21, 2018 10:41:00 GMT
Actually Primuspilus, that list that I posted has revealed to me several important issues. (I’ve since created a longer one, all from the first half of the Book II Army Lists, which I won’t bore people with by posting here... ...but if anyone is interested, here it is: D3H2 points system.doc (65.5 KB) )1) having a point system is not a bad thing in itself, but the effect is mostly trivial (apart from Ax/Wb/Ps armies), and is usually just an extra element or two here and there. 2) it does cause some complications with the army compositions (i.e. If extra elements are required, which elements should they be?). 3) points alone does not address the inherent weakness of some elements, it just gives them more weak elements, which has a different effect. Item 3 is an interesting example. Some people think that Pike armies are at a disadvantage because they have a shorter front line. But that is only true because the Ax elements in these Pk armies are too weak to stand in the front line. Make Ax a bit more durable and there would be no need to have 8Pk double elements to make the line longer. So rather than ‘fix’ the Pk, how about fixing the Ax, which the battle of Cannae alone shows are far too weak. A HoTT style points system is a lazy way of addressing these issues. Likewise ‘blanket’ fixes like giving all Bows a CF of 3 against foot (which would make their shooting more deadly, and make side-supported double based 8Bw equal to Blades in close combat), or a ‘blanket’ fix for Ax by giving them a CF of 4 against foot (which would make them too powerful in bad going and against Ps and Wb), is not the ideal solution. I much prefer precise surgical fixes...and Primuspilus has suggested how this can be done, by the simple inclusion of a new tactical factor:- +1 to solid Ax and solid Bw when fighting Bd, Pk or Sp (except in bad going, or when defending or assaulting a City, Fort, or Camp).And remove side-support from all 8Bw. (The justification for solid Ax is that 4Ax are regulars or veteran mercenaries, who are trained to close-up into close formation when facing heavy foot, like the DBMM Ax (S) class. As for solid Bows, well, swords/spears/axes are more effective killing devices than arrows...but only if your opponent stands toe-to-toe with you and doesn’t keep dodging away. Anyway, it gives us just the right effect...and it’s the effect that we are after.)ConclusionSo I would keep Tom’s point system, and include Joe Collin’s new +1 PIP to contact Bows (as well as solid Pk recoils opponents on an equal score). But in addition, I think the following are all also needed:- Primuspilus’ new tactical factor, as mentioned above... ...and Joe Collin’s ‘evade’ rule, where Ax and Ps (and maybe 3Bw as well?) can recoil like mounted, a base depth or a full BW. These would help fix the weakness of Bows and soild Ax...but only where needed, and are not ‘blanket’ fixes. They would also make 8Pk unnecessary. Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients, and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Jun 21, 2018 11:51:09 GMT
Sorry Steve - for what it is worth I agree with Tom and Phil that the Joe's +1 pip doesn't fit the historical reality.
Solid AX and BW need a boost in their combat factors vs foot per primuspilus's solution. In reality every list where the BW are rated as solid (that I have seen) does so because the BW were armed with close combat weaponry and often were armored as well. Solid AX were better armed and armored than the Fast version as well. And some, such as Roman auxilia had slings or other missile weapons with which to take on lighter troops.
As I noted previously, I have and will be building more, armies with significant numbers of archers. Whatever is decided will be a benefit, but I would prefer a fix that fits with what I have read of the historical battles.
|
|